The City Council of the City of Columbia, Missouri met for a regular meeting at 7:00 p.m. on Monday, July 1, 2002, in the Council Chamber of the City of Columbia, Missouri. The roll was taken with the following results: Council Members LOVELESS, JOHN, COFFMAN, HINDMAN, CRAYTON, JANKU and HUTTON were present. The City Manager, City Counselor, City Clerk and various department heads were also present.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
The minutes of the regular meeting of June 17, 2002, were approved unanimously by voice vote on a motion by Mr. Loveless and a second by Mr. John.
APPROVAL AND ADJUSTMENT OF AGENDA INCLUDING CONSENT AGENDA
Mayor Hindman noted that B217-02 would be moved to precede B212-02 under Old Business. He also noted a request for withdrawal of B216-02.
The agenda, as amended, including the Consent Agenda, was approved unanimously by voice vote on a motion made by Mr. Loveless and a second by Ms. Crayton.
SCHEDULED PUBLIC COMMENTS
Dr. Trish Blair, 107 W. Burnam, commented on the kick-off for the second Columbia Cares for Kutaisi salt campaign.
B211-02 Adopting the 2025 Transportation Plan.
The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.
Mr. Beck explained this Plan is being recommended by the CATSO Committee. He noted it was last updated in 1998. The purpose of this document is to identify locations of new roads and the expansion of existing roads needed for future roadway systems. Mr. Beck reported on another element which includes the PedNet Plan denoting future sidewalk, bike paths and trail networks. The second part of the overall plan relates to construction standards for roads, sidewalks and bikeways. Mr. Beck remarked this portion of the Plan has not been finalized, but is being reviewed by different groups. This issue will be discussed further after adoption of the 2025 Plan.
Mayor Hindman opened the public hearing.
Chip Cooper, 500 Longfellow, a representative of the PedNet Coalition, thanked the members of the CATSO Coordinating Committee for including the PedNet Plan. Mr. Cooper began a power point presentation showing what the group has found around the country in the way of bicycle/pedestrian/wheelchair networks. Many of the most livable cities were college towns like Columbia. He explained that the network components include bike lanes, nature trails and shared use paths (pedways). Mr. Cooper reported the networks are built in different percentages of these components with some being more heavily oriented toward bike lanes and others toward the shared use path. He indicated the shared use path, or pedway, is usually paved.
Christy Welliver, 184 W. Green Meadows Road, continued the presentation by explaining examples of pedway networks in other cities.
Terry Skinner, 3716 Lansing, stated that Columbia needs a comprehensive network plan to overcome some of its current deficiencies. He pointed out inadequacies in Columbia's current bike/ped routes.
Carrie Gartner, 902 Hardin, remarked that Columbia is a wonderful city when it comes to trails as there are plenty of places to bike, wheel or walk without running into cars. She believed the City had a problem with key connector streets that people cannot walk or wheel down. She explained that PedNet supports the establishment of interconnected multi-use pathways throughout the City of Columbia. Ms. Gartner asked PedNet supporters present to stand. Approximately four dozen people stood.
Karl Skala, 5201 Gasconade, urged the Council to adopt the Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan along with the street standards and 2025 Plan.
Sarah Lang, 1012 Westport, spoke on behalf of the Eco-Recreation Park Committee, a citizens group working with the Parks and Recreation Department in planning development options for the Russell Park property. Ms. Lang indicated she was also present to lend support for the PedNet message and vision. She spoke of the Parks and Recreation 2002 Trails Master Plan which includes a proposed trail off the Russell property that connects to the MKT Trail. She noted this trail is included in the Parks and Recreation Plan, but it is not shown on the CATSO Pedway Plan. Ms. Lang reported the Eco-Recreation Park Committee is hopeful the Council would adopt it as part of the CATSO PedNet Trail Plan as well.
Bernard Ewigman, 810 Edgewood, explained that he has practiced medicine in Columbia since 1979 and has been a member of the PedNet Coalition since its inception. Dr. Ewigman addressed health issues relating to the existence of a trail/pedway environment and the virtues of exercise.
Troy Balthazor, 502 West Boulevard North, spoke on behalf of Services for Independent Living and their enthusiasm toward the ideas contained in the PedNet Plan. He noted the PedNet philosophy supports alternative modes of transportation. Mr. Balthazor reported that a high percentage of individuals with disabilities requiring the use of wheelchairs or who have other orthopaedic problems are not able to be employed because of the lack of transportation options.
Vernon Forbes, 1007 Grand, chairperson of the Bicycle/Pedestrian Commission, reviewed the Commission's comments as it relates to the 2025 Plan.
Ann Gowans, 701 Redbud, Chairperson of the Parks and Recreation, voiced her complete support of the PedNet Plan. She believed retirees are attracted to cities that have these kinds of facilities.
Hank Ottinger, 511 Westwood, commented that Columbia is not as bicycle-friendly as it should be. He thought if the City established a really good system, more people will start riding bikes.
John Clark, 403 N. Ninth, noted that in Section 10.7 of the proposed CATSO 2025 Plan, one of the recommendations was to study public transportation in the unincorporated areas of the county. He said the Bicycle and Pedestrian Commission requested that the word "incorporated" be added. Mr. Clark requested that the Commission be allowed to continue to work on model street standards.
Mayor Hindman closed the public hearing.
Mr. Hutton understood that roads shown on the map in a particular location did not necessarily mean that would be their exact location. He asked if the Plan is meant to be conceptual. Mr. Patterson responded that was generally true, the Plan identifies a corridor, a point of origin and a destination of where the road should serve.
Mr. Janku noted the Council fiscal constraints for the Pedway Plan. He said the Council will need to develop the same approach in terms of the capital improvement budget that shows what items are funded and unfunded and what the priorities are in terms of implementation. He believed the pedway network should be incorporated into the CIP plan in the same manner as is done with the street system.
Mr. Beck explained the CIP plan can only be amended based upon standards adopted by the Council.
Once the Pedway Plan is adopted, Mr. Janku said it would then be developed in a fiscally constrained manner similar to the street system wherein projects are listed by year. Mr. Beck concurred.
Ms. Crayton commented that she would like to see the PedNet Coalition start a campaign encouraging people in the urban areas to participate in riding and walking. While working on the CIP plan, she spoke of the importance of the West Broadway sidewalk project. Ms. Crayton believed, however, the City could proceed with painting bike lanes. She also asked that all transportation issues be looked at equally, including public transportation.
Mayor Hindman commented a lot of thought went into the creation of the 2025 Plan, and although it may not be perfect, he said it is very good.
Mr. Janku made the motion that B211-02 be amended by including the trail from the Russell property to the MKT trail in the 2025 Plan. The motion was seconded by Mr. Loveless.
Mayor Hindman said he was in favor of the motion, but thought the Council should consider adding all the trails identified in the Parks Master Plan. He pointed out there are several trails identified in that document that are not included in the 2025 Plan.
The motion to amend, made by Mr. Janku, seconded by Mr. Loveless, was approved unanimously by voice vote.
Mr. Janku made the motion to further amend B211-02 by adding to Section 10.7 the word "incorporated" in terms of examining the options for expanding public transportation. The motion was seconded by Mr. Loveless and approved unanimously by voice vote.
B211-02, as amended, was given third reading with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: LOVELESS, JOHN, COFFMAN, HINDMAN, CRAYTON, JANKU, HUTTON. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:
Mr. Janku made the motion that the Planning and Zoning
Commission be directed to work with affected community interests, hold a
public hearing and develop a recommendation for an amendment to the Subdivision
Regulations implementing new design standards for all types of streets. He
further motioned that they include the access management issues that were
talked about in the report. The motion was seconded by Mayor Hindman and
approved unanimously by voice vote.
B214-02 Rezoning property located on
the west side of Peach Court, southwest of Peachtree Drive from
District C-1 to District C-P; approving the C-P Development Plan of Holiday Inn and Suites.
The bill was giving second reading by the Clerk.
Mr. Dudark noted the Council received a supplemental report in regard to this application. This 3.27 tract is located south of Nifong, off of Peach Tree Drive on Peach Tree Court and the property is currently zoned C-1. Mr. Dudark reported the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval of the request subject to four conditions. He outlined the first condition is that the tract may be used for all permitted C-1 uses and a hotel, which is acceptable to the applicant. The second condition is a revision to the outdoor lighting plan to include 15 poles with a total height of 23 feet. Mr. Dudark noted the C-P plan has been revised to incorporate that condition. The third issue is that the proposed free-standing sign must meet C-3 zoning district sign standards in regards to surface area and height (12 feet high with 64 square feet of surface area). The applicant has indicated a willingness to accept that condition if the building can be constructed up to 60 feet tall and the other signs on the C-P plan would be approved by the Council. Mr. Dudark pointed out that would include approval of a 345 square foot wall sign placed on the east wall of the building (the building facing the cul-de-sac). If this wall sign is acceptable, the signage proposed earlier on the south side of the building would be deleted. The final condition was that a storm water management plan be approved by the Public Works Department. He said that plan has since been approved by the Public Works Department. Mr. Dudark indicated the only issues before the Council relates to the height of the building, and the square footage of the wall sign and the free-standing sign.
Mr. Janku asked about the canopy signs depicted in the rendering sent to the Council. Mr. Dudark explained that the signs on the canopy were presented to the Commission. He reiterated the main issue before the Council is the wall sign on the building. He understood the applicant's revision to be for only one wall sign. Mr. Dudark thought perhaps the rendering is illustrative and that only the one sign on the east side of the building would actually be constructed.
Mayor Hindman opened the public hearing.
Dan Simon, an attorney with offices at 203 Executive Building, spoke on behalf of the property owner Barkley Center General Partnership on behalf of Ted Stewart and his company, who would be the owner and operator of the hotel. He noted an extensive letter from Mr. Peters had been provided describing the plan and also the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission. Mr. Simon indicated the property is located within a commercial area which would allow for substantial structures. He asked that the Council approve the request for a C-P zone and the subsequent Development Plan to allow the hotel. Mr. Simon knew of no opposition from the neighboring property owners.
With respect to the signs, Mr. Simon reported the applicant tried to accommodate the specifications of Holiday Inn for such. He noted the use of the building itself to advertise its presence so that people traveling from out of town can find the hotel. He remarked the proposed east wall sign would occupy less than two percent of the surface area on the east frontage of the building. Mr. Simon stated that the signs were a point of discussion at the Planning and Zoning level, and the Commission had absolutely no problems with the wall signs. He pointed out the applicant indicated the wall sign planned for the south side of the building could be omitted, but the Commission suggested that it be left on the building. In addition, Mr. Simon noted the applicant's willingness to decrease the height of the building to 55 feet, but the Commission thought it should be left at 71 feet. Mr. Simon stated the C-P plan shows it at 60 feet. He spoke of the Commission's requirements in regards to the lighting plan and storm water, and both issues have been dealt with.
Mayor Hindman asked if the sign at the peak of the building shown on the rendering was roughly to scale. The architect responded it was precisely to scale.
Mr. Janku asked about the pole sign. Mr. Simon said it would be limited to C-3 standards, 60 square feet and 12 to 13 feet tall.
Mr. Hutton questioned the reference to a mansard roof. He wondered if this is some kind of fake roof used to hide the HVAC units. Mr. Simon confirmed that statement. Mr. Hutton asked if the rendering was an accurate representation of how the building would look. Mr. Simon replied affirmatively.
Mr. Janku inquired as to whether the applicant would object to the pole sign being a monument sign. Mr. Simon was not sure at this point if the pole sign will even be erected.
Karl Skala, 5201 Gasconade, spoke as a member of the Planning and Zoning Commission. He reiterated comments made at the Commission meeting.
Mayor Hindman closed the public hearing.
Mr. Janku made the motion that B214-02 be amended by deleting the pole sign from the plan.
Mr. Boeckmann suggested amending Section 3 by adding the words "submitted on June 27, 2002" to the first sentence. He stated Section 4 (1) could be amended per Mr. Janku's condition, and then subsections 2 and 3 should be deleted.
Mr. John made the motion that B214-02 be amended per Mr. Boeckmann's suggestion. The motion was seconded by Mr. Coffman and approved unanimously by voice vote.
B214-02, as amended, was given third reading with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: LOVELESS, JOHN, COFFMAN, HINDMAN, CRAYTON, JANKU, HUTTON. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:
B218-02 Voluntary annexation of property
located on the southwest side of Ponderosa Street, southeast of the
Blue Acres Mobile Home Park; establishing permanent R-3 zoning.
The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.
Mr. Beck explained that this involves 75 acres of the Philips tract and the request is for annexation and the establishment of permanent R-3 zoning. The Planning and Zoning Commission voted 5-3 to recommend denial of the zoning request. The majority of the members thought the property should be zoned PUD. Mr. Beck reported the tract is included in the south annexation area to be voted on in August; however, that does not prevent the property owner from proceeding with voluntary annexation instead.
Mayor Hindman opened the public hearing.
Craig VanMatre, an attorney with offices at 1103 E. Broadway, spoke on behalf of the property owner/applicant. He explained the request for voluntary annexation upon the condition of permanent R-3 zoning. He noted the request is consistent with the Plan of Intent the Council adopted in connection with the involuntary annexation. Mr. VanMatre pointed out that R-3 zoning characteristics are identical to those of the tract's existing R-M zoning in the County.
John Ikerd, 5121 S. Brock Rodgers Road, urged the Council to deny the request for permanent multi-family residential development on this 75 acre tract regardless of whether the request is for R-3 or PUD-17. Mr. Ikerd reiterated his testimony given at the June 17th Council meeting. He concluded by again urging the Council to reject the proposal before them so they can proceed with a land use planning process that ultimately will result in the greatest benefits for all concerned. Mr. Ikerd asked those in opposition to the request to stand. Approximately two dozen people stood.
Boyd Terry, explained that the upper Gans Creek runs through his property at 5800 New Haven Road. Dr. Terry is associated with the Little Bonne Femme Watershed Partnership. He expressed concern about decisions that can cause irreversible damage to the public domain as well as to the random private domain. Dr. Terry asked that this request be set aside until a comprehensive land use plan for the general area has been completed. He believed the current proposal could ruin this watershed beyond recovery.
Alyce Turner, 2194 E. Bearfield, spoke on behalf of the Boone County Smart Growth Coalition. Ms. Turner also reiterated her comments of the last meeting. She reminded the Council that she had presented them with signatures of approximately 900 citizens who support the preservation and public acquisition of the 500 acre Philips tract. She urged the Council to deny this voluntary annexation request.
Karl Skala, 5201 Gasconade, spoke in opposition.
Joe Bindbeutel, 1701 E. Gans Road, explained that he lives approximately one-half mile downstream from the proposed development. He spoke of the Council's policy for planned development in this watershed area. While the request involves only 75 acres, Mr. Bindbeutel noted the potential for upzoning the remaining 400 plus acres that would be a tremendous departure in terms of public process for a zoning decision. He did not think most people were aware that proposal was on the table. He pointed out that the planning requirement is not a cost to a developer that occasions a regulatory taking. Mr. Bindbeutel stated well-planned communities add value to the land. He believed the applicant should be held to the same high standards as had been expected of others who developed property in this area.
Davika Thomas, 411 W. Walnut, voiced concern about Gans Creek. She noted that Gans Road was paved last year and the creek is already showing signs of degradation. She urged the Council to enact a plan for this entire watershed.
John Clark, 403 N. Ninth, reiterated his comments made before the Planning and Zoning Commission.
Mayor Hindman closed the public hearing.
Mayor Hindman referred to the Plan of Intent that was adopted when the annexation election ordinances were passed wherein the future City zoning would be essentially the same as the existing County zone. He also spoke about the Council's policy resolution for this area in which all development should be in a planned district. Mayor Hindman stated that because the two issues are in conflict, he will support the latter due to the environmental sensitivity of this area.
Mr. Hutton asked what would prevent this property from being developed in the county as it pertains to the extension of City utilities to the site. In regards to sewer, per State regulations and law, Mr. Patterson indicated the applicant could theoretically develop the property in the County, but from a practical standpoint it would be extremely difficult due to the tract's location in a watershed area. In addition, the type of system they would have to build would be pretty expensive. Mr. Hutton asked about water and electric. Mr. Dudark thought the property is currently served by Consolidated Water District No. One, but it is in the City's territory. Mr. Boeckmann explained the City has entered into territorial agreements for both water and electric service in this area, and it does not matter if the property is inside or outside the City limits, it would be treated the same.
Mr. Hutton asked if County storm water regulations are similar to the City's. Mr. Patterson responded the County's regulations are not to the same standard. He said they have some review process for planned areas, but he was not sure if there were any for open zoning. Mr. Patterson noted the development would be subject to the Clean Water Act Phase I Regulations. He indicated the applicant would have to obtain a land disturbance permit from DNR and the subsequent enforcement would be provided by the state as opposed to local government. Mr. Hutton pointed out if this property were developed in the county, this sensitive watershed would be in greater danger due to the lesser requirements. Mr. Patterson concurred by saying the ability to restrict the potential damage to the basin would be diminished.
If the Council denies this annexation request tonight but it passes with the election, Mr. Loveless asked if he understood that the City's Plan of Intent would still establish R-3 zoning. Mr. Boeckmann noted that the Plan of Intent shows an R-3 zone as part of the basic philosophy of establishing zoning in a similar manner as had existed in the county. If the Council defeats this request tonight, the soonest the property could be annexed into the City would be October 1, 2003. He noted a lot can happen between now and then, and annexation could even be delayed further because there would have to be a declaratory judgement action. If there is opposition to that, it could take substantially longer. Mr. Boeckmann thought it was conceivable there would be protections in place by that time which do not currently exist. He said if the election passes, the Council has shown in the Plan of Intent their aim to establish R-3 zoning.
Mr. Janku asked if the applicant could reapply for voluntary annexation. Mr. Boeckmann responded they could apply tomorrow if the request is defeated tonight. Mr. Boeckmann clarified that if the voters approve the annexation, the actual zoning would still have to follow the process of public hearings before the Planning and Zoning Commission and Council. He noted the property would be annexed with an R-1 zone per the Zoning Code, but the Council would have to approve the subsequent final zoning on each separate tract. Mayor Hindman asked if the Council could consider each request on its own merits. Mr. Boeckmann replied just because the Plan of Intent identifies an R-3 zone does not mean that after listening to public comments the Council would be prevented from zoning it something else. He indicated that would circumvent the hearing process.
Mr. Janku stated that as much as he would prefer to see this property annexed into the City, he did not think the Council should forego the planned designation they stipulated by policy resolution. He was aware that many people hoped for some kind of public acquisition of the property, but given the costs of such and the City's very limited resources, he believed that to be a very unlikely proposition.
Mr. Loveless agreed that development within watersheds should be planned. He is particularly interested in the plans for the Three Creeks area.
B218-02 was given third reading with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: NO ONE. VOTING NO: LOVELESS, JOHN, COFFMAN, HINDMAN, CRAYTON, JANKU, HUTTON. Bill defeated.
B219-02 Authorizing the installation
of traffic calming devices on Audubon Drive.
The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.
Mr. Beck explained staff's recommendation for a temporary calming device to be placed at this location at an estimated cost of $2,200. If it is found to be successful, a more permanent device would be placed there at an estimated cost of $9,200.
Mr. John commented that he had heard several complaints on the Mills Drive project wherein individual land owners were moving barrels and things around. He hoped staff will ensure that the devices in this case are well-anchored.
Mayor Hindman opened the public hearing.
Jane Addison, 2407 Shepard Boulevard, Chairperson of the Shepard Boulevard Association, thanked staff for their work on this project. She indicated residents believe the project will be successful and requested that the devices be in place by the beginning of the school year. They thought a six month trial would be good.
Jim Minch, 2711 Mallard, father of two children who walk to Shepard School, stated he understood parental concerns about safety on Audubon; however, he did not support the proposed traffic calming devices. He noted that Audubon is one of the two main feeder streets in the Shepard Boulevard neighborhood and was designed to carry traffic to and from residential streets within this subdivision. As each device is installed on Audubon, Mr. Minch asserted that more vehicles will divert onto Falcon, Pheasant Run, Bob-O-Link and Meadowlark exposing residents on those streets to greater traffic and less safety all for the sake of a handful of people who live on Audubon and are pushing for this project. He believed the project to be a waste of City money and time and suggested that funds could be better spent in areas where there is a true need. Mr. Minch noted that the enhanced crosswalk signs and painting recently installed by the City already make the crossing much safer for children. He saw no need for more devices.
Mr. Coffman asked Mr. Minch if his concern was the expenditure of City funds or whether he thought the devices would somehow increase traffic on other streets near his home. Mr. Minch said it was a mix of both -- the project would increase traffic on the four streets he mentioned. Mr. Coffman wondered if that was because he thought residents would use those streets to avoid the bulb-outs at Shepard and Audubon. If that was the case, he observed there is no way to avoid the bulb-out at Cardinal and Meadowlark. Mr. Coffman inquired if anyone else shared Mr. Minch's concern. Mr. Minch said he had no idea. Mr. Coffman indicated he had heard from two or three people on Meadowlark who supported the installation of traffic calming devices.
Mayor Hindman closed the public hearing.
Mr. Janku noted that engineering work had been done in order to come up with this plan and how it would affect traffic speeds.
Mr. Hutton felt the second speaker made some good points which relate to City street standards. He noted the City policy of building wide streets and prohibiting parking on them, and the associated problem with motorists exceeding the 30 mph speed limit. Mr. Hutton's point was that the City needed to address street standards and establish new goals. On the other hand, he thought this project was worth a trial run to see what happens.
Mr. Coffman agreed and said this is something he has received complaints about for a long time. He thanked the staff for working up the plans and he believed the temporary nature of it will allow the Council to re-evaluate the project in six months. Mr. Coffman liked the idea of it being near an elementary school.
B219-02 was given third reading with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: LOVELESS, JOHN, COFFMAN, HINDMAN, CRAYTON, JANKU, HUTTON. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:
(A) Voluntary annexation of property
located south of I-70 Drive Southeast, approximately 120 feet east of
Upland Creek Road.
Item A was read by the Clerk.
Mr. Beck explained that this approximate nine acre tract of land is located in the east annexation area. He said there appears to be no problem having it annexed into the City as far as the staffing work is concerned. Mr. Beck noted an ordinance being introduced this evening that would approve the annexation.
Mayor Hindman opened the public hearing.
There being no comments, Mayor Hindman closed the public hearing.
B217-02 Approving The Intersection PUD site plan; granting a variance to the Subdivision Regulations
regarding right-of-way width; approving an amendment to the Statement of Intent; approving a
The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.
Mr. Dudark explained that this property, located in the area of Sexton, Grand and Garth, had been zoned PUD about a year ago. The plans for this approximate three acre tract call for the construction of a sanctuary, family activity center, a maintenance building, as well as some recreational facilities consisting of an outdoor basketball court, volleyball court and a walking trail. He noted a site plan accompanying the request identifying the location of the sanctuary, activities center and some of the recreation facilities. The second lot will be used by the school for parking and is located on the west side of Grand.
Mr. Dudark noted along with this request are two variance requests; one to modify the PUD requirement that all uses be setback 25 feet from the property line, and a variance request for the right-of-way width for Sexton and Grand. The applicant is asking for a variance to allow a six foot setback along the parking area along Sexton and Grand. He stated this six foot strip would be landscaped in accordance with the landscaping requirements. Mr. Dudark explained that Sexton and Grand are existing streets that have been improved with curbs and gutters and sidewalks. The current right-of-way is 40 feet. Staff does not anticipate any widening of those streets in the future. Mr. Dudark also spoke about the applicant's request to amend their Statement of Intent which was submitted at the rezoning hearing. At that time they included an eight foot wide walking trail and they are now asking that it be changed to five feet. The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval of the PUD site plan with the variances and the amendment to the Statement of Intent. Mr. Dudark noted the condition requiring the outdoor lighting being limited to a maximum of 20-feet in height. He explained the applicant has since amended their plan to show a 20-foot standard.
Art Dyer, Pastor of Grace Covenant Church, thanked everyone for the trust put in them.
Regarding the shared use path, Mayor Hindman said he had been impressed with the original request for an eight foot width. He understood their reasoning for such was to provide a neighborhood area where people can share the use with wheelchairs, bicycles and roller blades.
Dana Battison, Church Treasurer, indicated bicycles will not be allowed on the walking trail. She said it will be limited to pedestrians/skaters/people in wheelchairs and on walkers.
Mayor Hindman noted that two people in wheelchairs cannot pass going in opposite directions on a five foot walk. He suggested they rethink their request to reduce the pathway to five feet. Ms. Battison responded their intention is to serve the community and if it needs to be six feet that is what it will be. Pastor Dyer agreed that he was not opposed to constructing the trail to a six foot width.
Otto Trachsel, 3702 Wayside, supported the six foot width.
William Easley, 705 Cook, spoke against the parking area.
William Woodward, 200A Unity, spoke in favor of the Church. He was not in favor of the parking lot across the street as he thought it would be a safety hazard.
Waldo Palmer, 414 Alexander, spoke in favor of the request. He suggested the church rent parking spaces to the teachers.
Mayor Hindman made the motion to amend the Statement of Intent by allowing the walking trail to be constructed to a 6-foot width rather than an 8-foot width. The motion was seconded by Mr. Janku and approved unanimously by voice vote.
B217-02, as amended, was given third reading with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: LOVELESS, JOHN, COFFMAN, HINDMAN, CRAYTON, JANKU, HUTTON. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:
B212-02 Approving the final plat of
Grace Covenant Church Subdivision, a replat of Lots 2 through 9 of Guitar's
Subdivision and Park Addition.
The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.
Mr. Beck explained that approval of this plat relates to the previous agenda item. The tract consists of 3.3 acres and is located on the north side of Sexton Road, between Grand and North Garth.
B212-02 was given third reading with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: LOVELESS, JOHN, COFFMAN, HINDMAN, CRAYTON, JANKU, HUTTON. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:
B215-02 Granting a variance from the
requirements of the City Code for sidewalk construction along the south
side of I-70 Drive Southeast, adjacent to Lot 2 of Little Bear Industrial Park.
The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.
Mr. Beck noted that this request was considered by the Planning and Zoning Commission and they recommended approval.
Mr. Dudark pointed out the variance request pertains to only part of the frontage on the eastern portion of the tract. He noted the ditch in this location and there are no sidewalks along I-70 Drive Southeast at this point.
Mr. Hutton asked if there was a sidewalk planned on Hillsdale. Mr. Dudark replied affirmatively.
Mr. John was appreciative of the eight criteria staff used in determining whether a variance is warranted.
B215-02 was given third reading with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: LOVELESS, JOHN, COFFMAN, HINDMAN, CRAYTON, JANKU, HUTTON. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:
B222-02 Amending Chapter 22 of the
City Code relating to special tax assessments on through lots.
The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.
Mr. Beck pointed out that this came about as part of an overall committee report that the Council adopted. Several concerns have been expressed about determining the benefit to a property that does not have access to the improved street. Mr. Beck said there is very little fiscal impact on thru lots.
In reference to the Brown Station Road project, Mr. Janku noted quite a bit of sidewalk was omitted from this work. The initial theory was the City would require the homeowners to build sidewalks on the back side of their property. Mr. Patterson said that was correct, staff was under the assumption that development would occur and according to ordinances in place at that time, those lots would be subject to a sidewalk when developed. He indicated this amendment would not change that project because this relates to tax billing the street, curb and guttering. When that property is developed under current ordinances, the developer will still have to address the sidewalk issue at the time they apply for a building permit and certificate of occupancy. Mr. Patterson explained on street projects, the City only tax bills the curb and gutter costs and, therefore, the only thing that would be eliminated with this amendment is one-half the cost of the curb and guttering. Mr. Janku believed it seemed inconsistent that the only exclusion relates to street projects. He personally thought sidewalks are needed on both sides of collector streets.
B222-02 was given third reading with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: LOVELESS, JOHN, COFFMAN, HINDMAN, CRAYTON, JANKU, HUTTON. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:
B229-02 Authorizing a right of use
permit with the University of Missouri to allow for construction, improvement
and maintenance of fiber optic telecommunication lines within City right-of-way.
The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.
Mr. Beck explained that this fiber optic line will not only serve University buildings, but also sororities and fraternities. He wondered to what extent this system might be at some point in time. Mr. Beck noted the Council discussed this issue briefly at the pre-Council dinner meeting. He understood the line is specifically geared toward University use. Mr. Beck believed the question is whether the City should charge a cost per foot for the use of public right-of-way, as is done with private companies.
Mr. Loveless remarked that the permit stipulates the line will be used solely by the University of Missouri for educational purposes. His concern related to the letter from the University that indicated this request is being made on behalf of Verizon. Mr. Loveless wondered if the University is leasing the line from Verizon.
Mr. Janku commented that the City does not charge local providers for use of right-of-way. Mr. John pointed out that these providers pay a franchise fee so we do not charge them for the right-of-way use. Mayor Hindman speculated whether Verizon is already covered by the franchise fee. Mr. John thought that there were some other things the City might want to discuss further with the University. Mayor Hindman suggested that this resolution be passed tonight and Mr. Beck could be instructed to discuss the principles of this agreement with the University.
B229-02 was given third reading with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: LOVELESS, JOHN, COFFMAN, HINDMAN, CRAYTON, JANKU, HUTTON. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:
The following bills were given second reading and the resolutions were read by the Clerk.
B213-02 Approving the final plat of
Flat Branch Subdivision, Plat No. 1, a replat of part of University Addition.
B220-02 Calling for bids for the construction of the Defoe Drive Drainage Project.
B221-02 Calling for bids for the construction of the Rollins Road Improvement Project.
B223-02 Approving the engineer's final report; authorizing Change Order No. 1 for the Bear Creek Recreation
Trail, Phase IV Project.
B224-02 Accepting easements for drainage, sidewalk, sewer, street and utility purposes.
B225-02 Authorizing a grant agreement with the FAA for the purchase of a snow plow/spreader truck and
reimbursement for acquisition of property; appropriating funds.
B226-02 Authorizing Supplement No. 1 to the FAA agreement; approving Change Order No. 1 and the
engineer's final report for the Engine/Generator Building Project at Columbia Regional Airport.
B227-02 Authorizing an agreement with the Missouri Department of Health for surveillance for the West Nile
Virus; appropriating funds.
B228-02 Accepting easements for utility purposes.
R125-02 Setting a public hearing: storm drainage improvements in the Vintage Drive area in Country Club
R126-02 Authorizing an agreement with the Missouri Department of Health and Senior Services for the 2002
Summer Food Program.
R127-02 Authorizing an agreement with the Memorial Day Weekend-Salute to Veterans for the 2003 Memorial
Day Air Show.
R128-02 Appointing an alternate director to the Missouri Joint Municipal Electric Utility Commission.
The bills were given third reading and the resolutions
were read with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: LOVELESS, JOHN,
COFFMAN, HINDMAN, CRAYTON, JANKU, HUTTON. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Bills declared
enacted and resolutions declared adopted, reading as follows:
R129-02 Establishing a Steering Committee to oversee the planning process for the Broadway
Bicycle/Pedestrian Corridor Plan.
The resolution was read by the Clerk.
Mr. Beck commented the Council will need to decide the funding for this project and whether a pedway should be established in this area.
Mr. Hutton asked if this section of sidewalk has been funded. Mr. Patterson said the north side was funded from West Boulevard to McBaine. Mr. Hutton inquired about the timing of the construction. Mr. Patterson explained that the project has been put on hold pending Council discussion relating to the policy of tax billing property owners. Mr. Hutton did not think the project could proceed until there is a plan.
Mr. Janku asked about the time frame for the study. Mr. Dudark responded that staff suggests that this be the first segment looked at and an interim report would be submitted to the Council once a conclusion is reached by the Committee.
Mayor Hindman questioned if the Council decided immediately to authorize construction of a 10-foot sidewalk, how soon it would be before it could be built. Mr. Patterson indicated there are a lot of right-of-way and property rights issues if a 10-foot sidewalk were to be constructed in this area. He guessed it would most likely be at least a year before it could be bid. Mayor Hindman asked about a four foot walk. Mr. Patterson said right-of-way would not be a major issue with a four or five foot walk. Under such a scenario, the project could be designed this fall and construction could probably begin by spring of next year. Mayor Hindman asked if the timing would be about the same if the Committee made a decision by October. Mr. Patterson verified it would probably be the same construction season.
Mr. Janku asserted the Broadway corridor is an important stretch of walkway, but the project keeps being delayed for one reason or another.
Mr. Loveless agreed it was an important stretch and suggested that the Council go ahead and direct staff to build the walk at "X" number of feet in width and the Committee could work around this decision.
Mr. Janku spoke of his preference for an eight foot sidewalk. Mr. Loveless inquired whether right-of-way would be an issue at this width. Mr. Patterson responded that staff would have to look at it, but indicated there is crowding at five feet. He reminded the Council of the current tax billing policy in which property owners would fund the balance of the project. He believed this is a policy the Council said they had wanted to reconsider. Mr. Loveless pointed out that the Council has the option to make changes to the tax billing when the project is completed. He suggested the Council direct staff to design the sidewalk at the maximum width possible that would not unnecessarily delay the project because of right-of-way issues. He said the Committee would then have to work with that directive.
Mr. John asked what portion of the project would be tax billed on a five foot walk.
Mr. Patterson replied that policy calls for 50% of the cost to be tax billed to the abutting property owners. He noted the City would fund the portions within intersections and beyond property lines.
Mr. Hutton suggested the Council proceed with appointing the Committee, and then request Mr. Patterson to bring a report back to the next meeting with updated costs and what the different options are for this corridor.
There was a discussion as to how the appointments would be made. Mr. Janku suggested that the Mayor make the appointments.
Mr. Janku made the motion that R129-02 be amended to authorize the Mayor to make the appointments from existing Commission memberships. The motion was seconded by Mr. Hutton and approved unanimously by voice vote.
The vote on R129-02, as amended, was recorded as follows: VOTING YES: LOVELESS, JOHN, COFFMAN, HINDMAN, CRAYTON, JANKU, HUTTON. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Resolution declared adopted, reading as follows:
Upon his request, Mr. John made the motion that Mr. Coffman be allowed to abstain from voting on R130-02. The motion was seconded by Mr. Loveless and approved unanimously by voice vote.
R130-02 Authorizing the City's Designated
Representative to sell excess SO2 allowances.
The resolution was read by the Clerk.
Mr. Malon commented that this was the resolution the Council requested at the last meeting.
Mr. Hutton inquired about the timing of the sale. Mr. John believed Mr. Malon was reluctant for staff to get caught in the situation of trying to guess the market. He guessed the allowances would probably be sold as soon as possible. Mr. Janku suggested that the person who manages City investments keep an eye on it. Mr. Coffman noted it would have to be someone who knows energy markets. Mayor Hindman recommended that the decision on when to sell the allowances be left up to staff. Mr. Malon indicated the market is currently very stable and he did not think it would go up or down drastically.
The vote on R130-02 was recorded as follows: VOTING YES: LOVELESS, JOHN, HINDMAN, CRAYTON, JANKU, HUTTON. VOTING NO: NO ONE. ABSTAINING: COFFMAN. Resolution declared adopted, reading as follows:
The following bills were introduced by the Mayor unless otherwise indicated, and all were given first reading:
B230-02 Voluntary annexation of property
located south of I-70 Drive Southeast, approximately 120 feet east
of Upland Creek Road; establishing permanent A-1 zoning.
B231-02 Approving the final plat of Cox-Leonard Subdivision, Plat 2, a replat of Lot 10 of Cox-Leonard
Subdivision; granting a variance to the Subdivision Regulations regarding sidewalks.
B232-02 Approving the final plat of Stonecrest, Plat 4.
B233-02 Approving the Lutheran Senior Services O-P Development Plan.
B234-02 Amending Chapter 29 of the City Code to establish a Planned General Industrial District.
B235-02 Changing the name of the semicircular segment of Sunflower Street located at the southern end of
Sunflower Street to Sunflower Circle.
B236-02 Rezoning four tracts of property located on the north side of I-70 Drive Northwest, west of Garden
Drive from Districts A-1 and C-P to Districts R-2 and M-R.
B237-02 Rezoning property located on the southwest corner of the intersection of Rainforest Parkway and
North Providence Road, extended, from District R-3 to District R-1.
B238-02 Granting a variance to the Subdivision Regulations regarding construction of sidewalks on Lot 1 of
the M.N.S. Subdivision.
B239-02 Approving the engineer's final report; authorizing Change Order No. 20 for the Armory Building
B240-02 Amending Chapter 14 of the City Code as it relates to parking on Elm Street and Sixth Street.
B241-02 Amending Chapter 22 of the City Code as it relates to special assessments for street maintenance
projects involving unimproved streets.
B242-02 Confirming the contract of I & I Works, Inc. for the construction of sidewalks in the Park de Ville
B243-02 Accepting an arts grant from the National Endowment for the Arts; appropriating funds.
B244-02 Accepting a deed of dedication for water main purposes.
B245-02 Amending Chapter 5 of the City Code as it relates to animals.
B246-02 Amending Chapter 5 of the City Code as it relates to animals on recently annexed property.
B247-02 Amending Chapter 9 of the City Code as it relates to open burning for waste disposal purposes on
recently annexed property.
B248-02 Amending Chapter 11 of the City Code as it relates to weeds.
B249-02 Amending Chapter 11 of the City Code as it relates to weeds on recently annexed property.
B250-02 Amending Chapter 16 of the City Code as it relates to fireworks and firearms.
REPORTS AND PETITIONS
(A) Intra-departmental Transfer of Funds.
(B) Consultant's Progress Report -
Columbia Police Department.
Chief Boehm commented that he is very pleased with the Consultant's progress. He noted his department has firmed up their mission and value statements, and basic outcomes. He pointed out that the outcomes are still in draft form and can be altered if the Council has any concerns. Chief Boehm indicated that department personnel are currently working on strategies to try to meet the particular outcomes presented. Once those are finished, a final report will be presented to the Council. If the Council has any thoughts or suggestions in reference to strategies for particular programs they would like to see enhanced, Chief Boehm stated that now, or in the next 30 to 45 days, would be an appropriate time to make any suggestions.
Mr. John noted that the Council has considered staffing, efficiency and the overall progress of the Police Department a priority. He acknowledged this has taken some time because of other distractions, but they want to ensure they get it done right (right staffing levels with the right personnel doing the right things). Mr. John thought this is a good step along the way. He was hopeful to see some recommendations shortly.
(C) Bicycle and Pedestrian Commission
Mr. Janku asked if the City had been granted right-of-way on Scott Boulevard when the ballfields in this area were expanded. Mr. Patterson explained that we have part of the right-of-way on the west side of Scott Boulevard, but not all of it. He thought this was probably in reference to a new development coming in to complete the section. Mr. Patterson reported staff is expecting, and possibly are in receipt of, a petition to construct that portion of Scott Boulevard through the tax billing process. He said a report will be coming to the Council with a staff recommendation. They could include this as part of the report.
Mr. John spoke about Arlene Drive which is located in the duplex development just on the west side of Scott Boulevard, before the Meredith Branch. He noted the proposed pedway would be coming in off of Scott Boulevard, one lot's depth into where Arlene then comes around. Mr. John asked if the City has obtained right-of-way or an easement in this location. Mr. Patterson was not sure and added that there are a few half right-of-ways missing in through the area.
Mayor Hindman explained the Commission's second request for Council to direct staff and ask MoDOT to study the feasibility of an enhanced pedestrian crossing at Business Loop 70 at Seventh Street, just east of Hickman High School. Mayor Hindman thought the entire area around the high school needed careful study.
Mr. Hutton was not sure it would be a good idea to have a pedestrian crossing in that location as it would give pedestrians a false sense of security. He suggested the crossing would not be safe without a light.
Mr. Janku made the motion that staff be directed to look into the situation and report back. The motion was seconded by Mr. John and approved unanimously by voice vote.
Mr. Janku asked that the Commission be told that the Council has followed-up on their request and that reports would be forthcoming.
(D) Parking Meter Removal on 5th Street.
Because of security issues at their power plant, Mr. Beck said the University is requesting removal of nine meters. He indicated their intent is to prohibit parking in this area.
Mr. Patterson noted that if the meters are removed, it would impact the parking utility by approximately $3,780 per year. He reviewed the Council's options as follows: the request could be denied; the request could be approved subject to a right of use agreement that calls for compensation; or the request could be approved as submitted. Mr. Patterson reported the University has not expressed a great deal of enthusiasm for the compensation option.
Mr. Janku believed this could set a precedent for similar requests in other locations. He thought the City should be compensated for the loss of the meters.
Mr. Loveless made the motion that staff be directed to prepare a right of use agreement whereby the University compensates the City for loss of income. The motion was seconded by Mr. Janku and approved unanimously by voice vote.
(E) Adoption of Official Name for the
Mr. Hood explained that the Parks and Recreation Commission voted 4-2 in favor of naming the facility the "Community Recreation Center". He noted that a second motion had been made and approved that the "ARC" name would be an acceptable alternative. He related staff's concern that the "Community Recreation Center" name may not have the same marketing potential as the "ARC" alternative. They are also concerned that the name may not clearly distinguish the new facility from other similar facilities in Columbia. Mr. Hood reported that staff believes the alternative name would have good marketing potential for several reasons. He reviewed that "ARC" is an acronym for Activity and Recreation Center, and this reference can be used in marketing campaigns. Mr. Hood also pointed out that the building's most notable architectural feature is a semi-circular outer wall which surrounds the aquatic center, and staff thought the ARC name becomes a play on the architectural feature of the building. He stated that staff thought ARC is a short, catchy and easily remembered name that has a lot flexibility for marketing and promotion. Mr. Hood asked for direction from the Council as to their preference so a resolution can be prepared to officially name the facility. He noted a representative was available for questions from Woodruff and Company, the consultant who assisted staff in developing a marketing program for the facility.
Mr. Janku asked about a trademark situation he had read about.
Mark Farnen, Woodruff and Company representative, reported his company ran a very short search on each of the names ultimately provided. One of things they found was that Columbia, SC has created a web site named: www.ColumbiaRecreation.com. It has been predicted that Columbia, MO would probably not have a problem using a similar name, except if it is used in an on-line capacity. Mr. Farnen also pointed out there are many organizations that use the acronym "ARC", with the most notable found, and probably one that is closest in its application and appeal, is the Audubon Resource Center at Lettuce Lake in Tampa, FL. He said it is called the ARC at the Park rather than the ARC in the Park as is suggested for Columbia. With this approach, he acknowledged that some might presuppose that the City's recreation center will be located in a park, but because it is going to be landscaped and there will be other uses such as soccer fields and a Farmers Market, it is descriptive of a park setting.
Mr. Coffman made the motion that the facility should be named ARC. The motion was seconded by Mr. Janku and approved unanimously by voice vote.
(F) Columbia Square Townhomes.
Mr. Beck summarized Yarco Companies' proposal to acquire and rehabilitate the Columbia Square Townhomes. He believed the project would provide substantial improvement to the property. The company is requesting a letter of support from the Mayor in order to apply for financial assistance from the Missouri Housing Development Commission.
Mr. Loveless made the motion that Mayor Hindman be authorized to sign the letter of support. The motion was seconded by Ms. Crayton and approved unanimously by voice vote.
(G) R.W. Beck Distributed Generation
Mr. Malon explained the City's pilot project with Shelter Insurance in which two generators were installed on their property to be used as backup to that site in case of power failure. He noted the City could also use the generators to meet demand peaks. He reported that R.W. Beck reviewed the project and indicated this is an important power supply option that would be beneficial to the City's electric customers. He pointed out that there are a limited number of customers who are large consumers, which is necessary in order to qualify for the service. Mr. Malon estimated the City probably would not get more than four or five of these over a number of years. He discussed the three methods of pricing the service. Mr. Malon reported that R.W. Beck recommended that the Council accept the avoided cost plus 10% methodology for calculating the monthly fee for additional new customers.
Mr. Coffman made the motion that staff be directed to move forward with the avoided cost plus 10% methodology. The motion was seconded by Mr. John and approved unanimously by voice vote.
APPOINTMENT TO BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
Mayor Hindman appointed the following individuals to the Library Board and the Mayor's Council on Physical Fitness and Health:
Horner, Winifred B., 1904 Tremont Ct., Ward 4 - term to expire 6/30/05
Richards, Thomas F., 1810 Valley Vista Ct., Ward 4 - term to expire 6/30/04
Robinson, Jessica K., 911 Rangeline, Ward 1 - term to expire 6/30/05
Sievert, Donald E., 300 Edgewood Ave., Ward 4 - term to expire 6/30/05
MAYOR'S PHYSICAL FITNESS & HEALTH COMMITTEE
Brown, Kevin E., 5033 E. Wilson Turner, County
Hemen, Heather A., 205 Orchard Ct., Ward 4
Morehouse, Georgia L., 916 Danforth, Ward 6
COMMENTS BY COUNCIL, STAFF AND PUBLIC
Mr. Coffman commented that the Cable Television Committee met this evening and heard a presentation from the CMRA (Community Media Resource Alliance) group. He explained that CMRA is trying to re-establish public access on Columbia's two cable television channels for organizations, groups and individuals. Mr. Coffman related that Jefferson City is the closest city currently running such a program. He said they are able to do this by utilizing franchise money and they have also established a partnership with Lincoln University. In reference to the City of Columbia, Mr. Coffman reported that several issues would need to be resolved such as what facility would be used, what kind of equipment would be needed, whether or not an entire channel would need to be set aside, and a funding method. He supported the City's involvement in facilitating and encouraging the parties to see if this is a feasible program for Columbia. Mr. Coffman made the motion that staff be directed to work with all parties, the not-for-profit CMRA group, educational and other groups in the City, and the two cable companies to see if something could be worked out, and report back including what issues the Council needs to be thinking about. The motion was seconded by Mr. Janku and approved unanimously by voice vote.
Mr. Coffman discussed the possibility of the City establishing
an electronics recycling program. He spoke of the environmental impact when
computers are thrown in the landfill. He acknowledged there are not a lot
of good ways to use and salvage this kind of equipment. Mr. Coffman indicated
he recently read that University City has initiated a pilot program to promote
Mr. Coffman made the motion that staff be directed to report back on what might be feasible to address the problem and facilitate more environmentally sensitive handling of that kind of waste. The motion was seconded by Ms. Crayton and approved unanimously by voice vote.
Mr. John commented the Council heard a presentation this
evening by the Downtown Beautification group. He suggested having the group
follow-up with a presentation at a Council meeting to allow the opportunity
for public input. Mr. Loveless thought the group is asking for Council endorsement
of their concept. Mr. John agreed that was probably correct, but felt they
should still present it at an open meeting. Mr. Janku noted that they are
also asking for money in the budget process. Mr. Coffman thought it would
be a good idea to have public input. Mayor Hindman suggested a resolution
endorsing the concept at which time the group could make their presentation.
Mr. Janku also proposed the City's channel could run a story explaining what
the group is doing. Mr. Beck thought it would be a good idea to see what
kind of input is received before the Council starts considering funding for
the project. Mr. Hutton agreed.
Mr. John made a motion that the item be placed on the agenda for a formal presentation at a Council meeting. The motion was seconded by Mr. Loveless and approved unanimously by voice vote.
Mr. John noted that the Council avoided having a lengthy
discussion about a storm water drainage easement for a residential development
that is planned on a cul-de-sac street near the University in the Grasslands
area. In the letter of withdrawal, he said the developer asked for the opportunity
to meet with the Council and the neighborhood association to discuss the
possibility of a connection from this development to the MKT Trail. Mr. John
would like for staff to try to meet with the developer to discuss this issue.
Mr. John made the motion that staff be directed to look into the situation and report back. The motion was seconded by Mayor Hindman and approved unanimously by voice vote.
Mayor Hindman noted a similar situation at Katy Place Apartments.
Mr. Loveless spoke about Cunningham Street which is located off of Bray and stubs into the property the City received for a new park. He noted at one time the plans for Cunningham to be extended to connect to the Rollins Road extension that will be constructed in the near future. Mr. Loveless suggested that the Cunningham extension be taken off the plans since it will be extended through City park property. He asked how the Council could get it off of the books. Mr. Janku suggested the stub could be used as an entrance to the park. Mr. John thought maybe this should be vacated as part of the parks master plan. Mr. Loveless indicated he would wait to pursue this issue until after the park plans are set.
Mr. Loveless made the motion that the City Manager be
directed to write a letter to the County Commission and the Sheriff regarding
the law enforcement sales tax ballot that states until the Council sees a
more equitable division of that income, it would be very difficult for the
City to issue an enthusiastic endorsement of that particular ballot issue.
And further, that the County make a proposal back to the City.
Mr. Janku suggested also sending the report that summarized how much potential income will be derived from within the City limits or more directly, by Columbia citizens. Mr. Loveless concurred.
The motion made by Mr. Loveless, amended by Mr. Janku, was seconded by Mayor Hindman and approved unanimously by voice vote.
Mr. Loveless asked about getting a more frequent sweeping
of bike route streets. He related that accumulation of trash in designated
bike lanes is hazardous because it forces the rider out into traffic.
Mr. Loveless made the motion that Public Works investigate sweeping the bike route streets more frequently. The motion was seconded by Mr. John and approved unanimously by voice vote.
Mr. Hutton related that the Council received a letter
from Habitat for Humanity regarding the purchase of some City-owned lots
in the Indian Hills Subdivision. He was aware that Habitat had already built
some homes in this subdivision and that there had been some controversy about
the way the houses were built and some other concerns. Mr. Hutton thought
the Council should consider the possibility of selling Habitat the lots,
but presumed this should be brought forward at a public forum so residents
can have a chance to voice their opinion.
Mr. Hutton asked that the proper legislation be prepared to authorize the sale of the lots, ensuring public input is taken at the time the issue is discussed and that residents within the Indian Hills Subdivision are made aware of the proposal.
Mr. John wondered if the sale of the lots had to be open to other entities. Mr. Janku reminded the Council of a resolution dealing with this issue. He suggested staff come back with a report on the process. Mr. Janku also proposed that before any other meetings or hearings take place, that Habitat meet with the neighborhood. Mr. Hutton thought that might have already occurred.
Mr. Hutton made the motion that the Council receive a report on the policy with regard to selling the lots and how they should move forward. The motion was seconded by Mr. Loveless and approved unanimously by voice vote.
Mr. Hutton was in receipt of a petition from the residents
of the North Hampton Apartments, located north on Route B, requesting that
their area be included in the City bus route.
Mr. Hutton made the motion that staff be directed to prepare a feasibility report with a cost analysis of what it would take to include this apartment complex on the route.
Mr. Janku said it would be helpful to look at a commuter option, something the City used to run out on Route B to the industrial area. Mr. Hutton assumed staff would include this information in the report.
The motion made by Mr. Hutton was seconded by Mr. Janku and approved unanimously by voice vote.
Mr. Janku reported that he had seen a report about an organization called Hometown. This is a group that sells life saving technology (i.e. defibrillators) at a discount to public power utility members. Mr. Janku noted that Springfield passed an ordinance dealing with the issue and asked that staff find out what they have done.
Mr. Janku made the motion that staff be directed to report on the possibility of bike lanes on Smiley, west of 763. The motion was seconded by Mr. Loveless and approved unanimously by voice vote.
Mr. Janku spoke about the necessity of designating a pedestrian crossing on Silvey Street due to the City's construction of a public park in this area. He asked staff to look into it. Mr.Janku also noted there are some gaps in the sidewalk network on the west side of Silvey, near the new subdivision. He requested that staff also look into this situation.
Mr. Janku indicated the Council received information from Mr. Beck about development charges. He said although it has not been updated, the City does have the authority to charge it. As part of the budget process, Mr. Janku wanted to have this considered. He thought the obvious way to do it would be to look at the costs that have gone up since it was passed, and make the appropriate adjustments as a starting point.
Mayor Hindman asked about the status of the proposed
bike lanes on Chapel Hill Road. Mr. Patterson replied that a report had been
submitted on the traffic calming options and the associated costs. Some of
the options reviewed included roundabouts at Fairview and Chapel Hill, and
at Limerick and Chapel Hill. He indicated staff also considered some chicane
treatment that could slow traffic down. Mr. Patterson did not remember the
cost for such a project, but thought it was several thousands of dollars.
Mayor Hindman commented he would like to go back to the possibility of installing
bicycle lanes since it would be awhile before any traffic calming devices
could be constructed.
Mr. Loveless reported when he initially raised the issue of bike lanes on Chapel Hill, he fielded phone calls from people who were of the opinion that if traffic was not slowed, the City would be creating an attractive nuisance by designating the road as a bike route. In addition, he stated that residents on the north side of Chapel Hill, between Fairview and Scott, and residents on the south side of Chapel Hill, between Fairview and Forum, objected to the loss of on-street parking. Mayor Hindman mentioned a new technique where bike lanes are striped on the outside of parking lanes. He believed it seemed to work great. Mr. Loveless indicated he rides this road twice a day and has never seen any parking on it. He commented that he is not concerned nearly as much about the parking on the street as he was the speed of the traffic.
Mayor Hindman made the motion that staff be directed to look into the relationship between speed and designating bike lanes. He was convinced that bike lanes would help slow the traffic down some. The motion was seconded by Mr. Loveless and approved unanimously by voice vote.
David Floatman, 5531 E. Rocky Mountain, explained that
he resides in the east annexation area. He questioned the wording in B245-02,
which was introduced this evening, that included the word "rabbits" in the
list of definitions. He asked that the intent be clarified. Mayor Hindman
assured him that the intention was not to eliminate pet rabbits. He said
the wording would be corrected if it was a drafting error.
Regarding the law enforcement tax, Mr. Floatman asserted that City residents would see a benefit to such.
Otto Trachsel, 3702 Wayside, complained about the height of the foliage in the planters located at Brown Station and Leeway. He also spoke about commercial property he owns in the Gregory Heights area that he uses for outside storage. Mr. Trachsel asked whether he would still be able to retain this use if the property is annexed. Mr. Boeckmann spoke about grandfathered rights and indicated Mr. Trachsel can continue to utilize the property as a non-conforming use.
Steve Kuhlman, 205 S. Garth, member of the Bicycle/Pedestrian Commission, stated he was the author of the report the Council considered earlier relating to the crosswalk on the Business Loop and pedway along Chapel Hill Road. At the Chapel Hill location, Mr. Kuhlman said there is already a beaten path through the front yard of the duplex. He estimated it is approximately 200 feet from Scott Boulevard to Arlene Drive, and the proposed pedway would open this duplex neighborhood to the Meadowbrook and Springhill Subdivisions. In regard to the crosswalk, Mr. Kuhlman believed that if Hickman students could be concentrated into an area that is properly signed and marked, it will help make vehicular traffic more aware of the pedestrians.
Henry Lane, 1816 E. Broadway, suggested including the School District in the City's efforts to get a split of the County's proposed law enforcement tax.
The meeting adjourned at 11:50 p.m.
© 2016 City of Columbia